Robert Spencer

|

Pamela Geller

|

Bat Ye'or

|

Brigitte Gabriel

|

Daniel Pipes

|

Debbie Schlussel

|

Walid Shoebat

|

Joe Kaufman

|

Wafa Sultan

|

Geert Wilders

|

The Nuclear Card

Now We All Agree the Afghan War Was Not Worth Fighting

Posted on 16 April 2012 by Ilisha

Afghan Graves

“Speak good words to an enemy very softly; gradually destroy him root and branch.” ~ Pashtun Proverb

For many, it seemed as if the 9/11 terrorist attacks instantly indicted the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, and transformed many Muslim-majority countries into potential bomb targets.

No Afghans were identified among the hijackers involved in the attacks, but US-ally-turned-Prime Suspect, Osama Bin Laden, had taken refuge in Afghanistan’s forbidding lands. After then-President George Bush rejected repeated offers by Taliban leaders to turn over the Saudi-born suspect, the US  invaded the already war-torn and impoverished country in October, 2001.

No Iraqis were identified among the hijackers involved in the attacks, and though the public was initially led to believe otherwise, Bush later acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Soon a new excuse was proffered: US-ally-turned-Scary Global Menace, Saddam Hussein, supposedly had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Fear peddling administration officials repeatedly warned that we must not let the “smoking gun be a mushroom cloud,” but the Downing Street Memo proved to be the real smoking gun, later revealing they knew all along the WMDs threat was a blatant lie.  The final pretext was “spreading freedom and democracy” at gunpoint, and the US-led invasion of the already war-torn and beleaguered nation of Iraq began March, 2003.

America was dragged into war under false pretenses, yet it seems no one has been held accountable. While President Obama at least acknowledged the war in Iraq was “the wrong one,” he also claimed the war in Afghanistan was “the right one.” But was it?

Shock, anger, and the thirst for vengeance certainly played a role in the decision to go to war with Afghanistan in 2001, and the Afghan people have paid a heavy price. Yet in 2010, nearly a decade after the invasion, a report revealed that 92% of Afghans were unaware of the 9/11 attacks. The finding was confirmed last fall when Afghans were asked what they thought of the war and they simply said: “Why are you here?”

A growing number of Americans seem to be asking themselves the same question–even as the usual suspects gin up yet another senseless war, this time with Iran.

Now We All Agree the Afghan War Was Not Worth Fighting

by Hamilton Nolan, Gawker

For the first time since we invaded Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, a majority of Republicans say that the war was not worth fighting. Even the superpatriots, the military do-or-die-ers, the America Firsters, the my-country-right-or-wrong crowd, have come to the conclusion that this war should never have happened. They’re right.

At this point, more than a decade on from the events that inspired us to invade Afghanistan in the first place, the burning sense of rage and desire for retribution and need to just do something have all faded away. We are more clear-eyed now. For almost every American that died in the Twin Towers, another American soldier has been killed in Afghanistan. Fifteen thousand more have been wounded. And tens of thousands of Afghan civilians have been killed or wounded in the fighting as well.

And was it worth it? No. It was not worth it. It was clearly not worth it. No rational person could say it was worth it. September 11 was a horrible tragedy. Our response to it, starting with a decade-long war in a nation that Americans neither know nor care about, was a tragedy as well. We have poured our blood and treasure into a desolate, poverty-stricken and already war-torn country halfway across the world—not to improve it, but to further destroy it. For this, we have gained nothing that we could not have gained with a much more limited and rational response.

You don’t send in the U.S. Army to invade an entire nation to find one man. You don’t send in the U.S. Army to invade an entire nation to deal with one numerically small terrorist group, for the same reason that you don’t use an M1 Abrams tank to tackle your household mouse infestation. You don’t cause tens of thousands of violent deaths to poor civilians to prove some vague notion of national toughness on a world stage. It is insane. The urge to lash out in a muscular fashion after 9/11 is perfectly understandable. But it is not rational, or ethical, or even, it is now clear, to our own national benefit. Such impulses are the reason that we need strong leaders. To prevent us from doing things like invading Afghanistan.

In the end, it turns out, America’s entire post-9/11 response was exactly wrong. The much-derided idea of treating the terrorist attacks as a crime would have been the rational thing to do. Doing our best to launch a world war was not to our benefit. It was not to the benefit of geopolitical stability. It was not to the benefit of the kids who entered the military, full of patriotism and love for their country, and ended up dead halfway around the world. It was not to the benefit of Afghan civilians, people who had nothing to do with any of this, who ended up bombed, shot, maimed, driven from their homes, victims of circumstance. We can fight, if we like, another decade in Afghanistan. When we leave, Afghanistan will still belong to the people who live there, and they, not us, will determine its future. Our stated goal took far too long to accomplish. Now that it’s been accomplished, we’re still in Afghanistan. And we’ll be there for years more.

A small group of bad men attacked targets in America. For this, we invaded an entire nation. Where they weren’t. Let’s not do that again.

***********************

Rethink AfghanistanThe war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that American civilians will be killed in a future terrorist attack.

  • Ilisha

    @GW

    I linked to a source. Bush did turn down offers, because they asked for evidence and wanted to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral third party. Pugnacious, swaggering Bush wouldn’t even discuss it.

    If a country demanded the US turn over a suspect, we would have every right to demand some evidence.

  • http://Loonwatch GW

    What kind of journalistic standards are being applied on this site? The US turns down Taliban offer for bin laden?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/world/a-nation-challenged-last-chance-taliban-refuse-quick-decision-over-bin-laden.html?pagewanted=all

    Does the truth matter or is this more of a fictional account / creative writing piece?

  • http://thepenofawanderingstranger.com/personal/ Jack Cope

    “The Taliban did fund bin laden. We had legit reasons to take them down”

    I disagree, for the Taliban OBL was a best an unwelcome guest, a real irritation really. They had their nice plot of land that they’d taken over with Western help (don’t forget that) and OBL and his ‘Arabs’ were a pain in the arse. There are many stories of OBL and his cronies posing for photos on Soviet equipment that other groups had destroyed to take the credit, there is even an amusing story by the journalist John Simpson where OBL tried (and failed) to have Simpson executed; the local fighters just ignored him as they thought he was just a jumped up twerp.

    Because that is really all OBL was, a bit of a prat but with a loud voice. I know we shouldn’t speak ill of the dead but think about it; what did OBL actually achieve? He basically bought his billionaire father’s money to Asia and tried to play soldiers because he was pissed of with life in Saudi. And on that note that is where most of the money came from, Saudi, so why weren’t they invaded?

    No, OBL was just a convenient figurehead to have pushing evil buttons in an evil cave and to blame everything on. Far easier than tackling the real issues.

  • Ryan

    The Taliban did fund bin laden. We had legit reasons to take them down

  • Anj

    I think the then foreign secretary of Pakistan was give a choice by the USA.
    Cooperate or be bombed into the stone age!
    Pakistan by all measures is a failed state. The only functioning institution is its armed forces.
    I see a military coup in the future and martial law for a few years to bring Pakistan from the brink of self destruction.

  • Hakeem

    The Afghan war would not have been possible without Pakistan’s willing assistance. Unfortunately, it’s not just about Afghanistan. Pakistan has a lot to explain about its own actions as this war has not only hurt the US, it has almost destroyed Pakistan as well.

  • khushboo

    “But, it also wasn’t protested and people for the most part agreed to do it at the time. Unlike Iraq.”

    True. We were ignorant fools back then not knowing what we were getting into after the shock of 9/11 but we could’ve admitted our mistake and gotten out immediately esp. since OBL wasn’t there. I guess the gov’t. had another agenda which cost us innocent civilians, trillions of $$$, and our troops’lives.

  • MasterQ

    Vietnam v2.0

  • Anj

    Another recent afghan proverb regarding the Americans:
    ” You may have the Rolex’s but we have the time”
    Abrams tanks, drones, special forces, bombs and bullets will never defeat the afghans.
    They are a people who are battle hardened. How do you stop someone who is willing to give his own life in exchange for yours.
    If the Americans had gone in respectfully and spoke to the afghans with humility then they would have moved the earth for them.
    Instead uncle Sam went in screaming yeeaahhhaaaa!
    Now the afghans are at the vengeance stage and that is the most dangerous.

  • Yusuf

    I agree it wasn’t worth it and completely pointless, that said if you were over the age of 18 and actually remember 11 years ago we wanted to go to war with somebody as a Nation after 9-11. Afghanistan was the target because of Osama. Now was it rational? No. But, it also wasn’t protested and people for the most part agreed to do it at the time. Unlike Iraq.

  • khushboo

    Yeah but now what? Now we’re “nation building” and calling it “training the Afghanis to fight against the terrorists” and also throwing money we don’t have at them to shut up the protests and saying that it’s “state-sponsored” since President Karzai who’s our puppet is okay with us occupying the country. How many more soldiers are gonna die? WTH do we do now?

  • Solid Snake

    Of course it was all wrong, well at least in the eyes of the innocent, ignorant, and uninformed. But to those who benefited from all of this, it was no mistake and it was not wrong. The objectives were clear, destabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, install ‘puppet’ regimes, open up military bases, the resources of oil and minerals were an added bonus. I hear people lamenting “oh how could we avoid repeating the Iraq ‘mistakes’ when dealing with Iran”. They aren’t mistakes, and they will be repeated/are being repeated whether we the citizenry like it or not.

  • mindy1

    How do we get world peace??? :(

  • Arman

    LW, why can’t I see the facebook/twitter share buttons any longer? Great article.

Advertise Here
Advertise Here